6 ms·
Consider for a moment that the "antivaxxers" are correct, that there is enormous bias in our medical, pharmaceutical, and media establishments in favor of vacci
by twofornone 5y ago
Consider for a moment that the "antivaxxers" are correct, that there is enormous bias in our medical, pharmaceutical, and media establishments in favor of vaccine safety. Could you really expect a reliable source on the subject if this were the case? What proportion of people are willing to speak out and risk career and social suicide for being labeled an "antivaxxer"? It is a self reinforcing chilling effect - few people speak out, data does not surface, fewer people look for evidence of adverse events, and over time it becomes riskier and more difficult to convince people that something is amiss.
Meanwhile the internet is awash with anecdote of severe symptoms following vaccination, and particularly concerning are frequent reports of doctors who are dismissive and/or refuse to submit reports on adverse effects. And then there are occasional claims of specialists in various neurological or heart related disciplines who claim to be seeing an unprecedented spike in certain normally rare symptoms among vaccinated patients.
Yeah, they could all be lying or this could be the nocebo effect or it's an army of bots spreading antivaxx propaganda...or maybe you can't magically accelerate a 5+ year testing and evaluation schedule for a novel technology merely because the president says he wants a vaccine yesterday? Note that the clinical data from pfizer and moderna is not available to the public - we are essentially relying on the manufacturers good faith with respect to the safety data that lead to approval by the FDA (moderna still isn't approved, by the way).
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102
- joshuamorton 5y agoYou've presented an unfalsifiable story. There's no way to prove it wrong, that's just more evidence of the conspiracy.
- binaryblitz 5y agoA massive global coverup of the vaccine being bad, or conspiracy theorists using facebook to spread their narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
- allturtles 5y ago> Consider for a moment that the "antivaxxers" are correct, that there is enormous bias in our medical, pharmaceutical, and media establishments in favor of vaccine safety. Could you really expect a reliable source on the subject if this were the case? I'm sorry, but this is just classic conspiracy theory thinking. "The very absence of evidence that I'm right is proof that I'm right."
- twofornone 5y agoThe point is that it is borderline disingenuous to ask for a source when the allegation is that the sources are deeply biased in favor of their own consistent and pervasive "safe and effective" propaganda. I'm not alleging that this proof of anything.
- hatware 5y agoEven if you spell it out for them, something tells me this person will keep calling you names, and finding every excuse not to question how they got to "believing" what they do.
- tharne 5y agoI'm the one who originally asked for a source - there was no name calling, nor should there be. If someone is going to make a bold claim about something generally considered to be safe, actually causing a significant number of injuries, it's irresponsible not to provide a source.
- hatware 5y agoThe name-calling wasn't referring to you. I'm pretty clearly referring to the person who threw out "conspiracy theory thinking" as if that was helping anything. For what it's worth: Sometimes there isn't a source. It will behoove you to entertain an idea without demanding that someone provide a source that you approve of. You can check VAERS yourself. Asking for sources on something that is so publicly available is... weird.
- Terretta 5y ago> they could all be lying or this could be the nocebo effect or it's an army of bots spreading antivaxx propaganda or a more prevalent pop-social affliction: "nonsense amplification syndrome"